Kurdish Leader Warns of Iraqi Civil War

Click here for original article

By HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The leader of Iraq's Kurdish region warned Tuesday of a "real civil war" if the central government does not implement a constitutional clause on the future of Kirkuk, the oil-rich city claimed by the Kurds.

Control over Kirkuk and the surrounding oil wealth is in dispute among the city's Kurdish, Arab and ethnic Turkish populations. Nationally, the dispute pits the Kurds, who want to annex it to their autonomous region in northern Iraq, against the country's Arab majority and its small minority of Turks, known locally as Turkomen.

Massoud Barzani, speaking in an interview with U.S.-funded Alhurra television, complained that the Baghdad government was dragging its feet on holding a referendum that could put Kirkuk under control of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

"There is procrastination (by the government) and if this issue is not resolved, as I said before, all options are open. ... Frankly I am not comfortable with the behavior and the policy of the federal government on Kirkuk and clause 140," he said.

The constitutional clause calls for a referendum in Kirkuk to decide its future status by the end of the year. Before the vote, the clause says Kurds expelled from the city during Saddam Hussein's rule must be allowed to return. A census would then be held to determine which ethnic group was a majority of the population.

Tens of thousands of Kurds have returned to the city since Saddam's ouster in 2003, but a census has not been conducted.

"The Kurds will never relinquish or bargain over Kirkuk, but we accepted to regain Kirkuk through constitutional and legal methods. But if we despair of those constitutional and legal methods, then we will have the right to resort to other means," Barzani warned.

"If clause 140 is not implemented, then there will be a real civil war," Barzani said, promising to visit Baghdad shortly to discuss the matter with the central government.

Barzani's warning was certain to deepen the political instability and further weaken Nouri al-Maliki, the embattled Shiite prime minister who already is fighting for his government's survival.

He is under severe pressure from Washington to take concrete steps to help reconcile Iraq's Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

A blueprint for Kirkuk's future was laid out in Iraq's 2005 constitution, but the city is widely viewed as a time bomb that could plunge Iraq deeper into crisis and violence.

Barzani accused unidentified countries of trying to delay a resolution of the Kirkuk issue and urged the Baghdad government not to succumb to regional pressures. It was clear he was referring to Turkey, where separatist Kurdish guerrillas are fighting government forces in the southeast of the country. Al-Maliki is due to visit Turkey in early August.

Adnan al-Mufti, the speaker of the Kurdish parliament, also criticized the central government's handling of the Kirkuk issue, saying it was partly to blame for missing a July 31 deadline to produce lists of eligible voters in the city and its surrounding districts.

The lists were to be compiled by a Baghdad-based government commission that includes Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen officials.

"It is not completely the fault of the federal government because we do understand that the deteriorating security situation in Kirkuk has played a role in this delay," al-Mufti said.

"The census issue is only part of the article and failing to carry it on time does not mean a total failure. We should work hard and fast with the federal government because we have limited time," he told The Associated Press from Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Barzani told the television interviewer that Kurdish nationhood was a "reality" rather than a dream. A Kurdish homeland, he said, was a "natural right for a nation of more than 50 million people in the Middle East. Why should we be denied this right?"

He ruled out, however, the use of violence to establish a Kurdish homeland, a prospect that worries Iran, Turkey and Syria because it would set a dangerous precedent for their own restive Kurdish minorities.

"It's a legitimate right but it must be realized at the suitable time," Barzani said of establishing a Kurdish nation.

---

AP reporter Yahya Barzanji in Kirkuk contributed to this report.

Iran 'biggest threat to Mid-East'

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that Iran poses the biggest threat to US Middle East interests, as she begins a major regional tour.

Ms Rice and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates are meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Arab ministers at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

The tour is aimed at uniting US allies against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

It is also trying to win support for a Mid-East peace conference planned for later this year, correspondents say.

______

"The United States is determined to assure our allies that we are going to be reliable in helping them to meet their security needs. We have a lot of interests in common in this region: in the fight against terrorism and extremism; in protecting the gains of peace processes of the past and in extending those gains to peace processes of the future," she said.

Earlier, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the US of tarnishing good relations between countries in the region.

Iran's nuclear programme and influence among Shia Muslim militant groups have long been sources of US concern.

Available ate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6923430.stm


So, while not diminishing the tension and instability that the Iran nuclear program causes, I think it is a bit hypocritical for the US to say that Iran is the biggest threat to Middle East security. Does Condi mean to say that they are the biggest threat "now that we have destabilized the region?" The biggest threat "after us?" Sure, Iran funds Hezbolla and other groups in the region that attempt to destabilize Israel and Iraq, but we have CIA operatives in Iran and throughout the region. We also initiated wars against two countries in the region and are getting ready to sell billions of dollars of arms to Iran's rivals in the region. So, who is destabilizing and endangering the region?

Giuliani: Dems want nanny government

By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer

(click here for original)

MEREDITH, N.H. (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Monday accused Democrats of favoring a controlling "nanny government" as he continued his bashing of the rival party.

The former New York mayor, opening a two-day campaign trip in the first primary state, also claimed that Democrats would raise taxes between 20 percent to 30 percent. He offered no specifics to back up those figures.

"Democrats are kind of falling over each other seeing who can raise taxes faster," Giuliani said. "It looks like they're going to raise taxes anywhere between 20 to 30 percent. John Edwards just said he's going to raise the capital gains tax double that. Last time we did that, we lost 40 percent in revenue. The last time we did what John Edwards is discussing, the United States lost revenue by basically discouraging people from making investments."

Edwards has proposed raising capital gains taxes for the wealthy while creating tax breaks for the middle class. An Edwards spokeswoman said Giuliani's assessment is flat wrong.

"To be honest, I think voters get really confused when they hear Giuliani speak, since it's hard to tell the difference between the failed economic policies of George Bush and the failed economic policies supported by Rudy Giuliani," Kate Bedingfield said.

At a later appearance in Wolfeboro - where rival Mitt Romney has a lakefront summer home - Giuliani said the solution lies in lower taxes.

"We should solve this problem of taxes being too high by lowering taxes," he said, standing on the steps of an ice cream shop.

Last week, Giuliani called the Democrats the "party of losers" and singled out Edwards and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for criticism on economics and foreign policy.

Giuliani argued that he favors less government and lower taxes.

"That's what makes America great, not this nanny government that Democrats want to give us, where government controls your entire life," he said.

Giuliani leads in some national polls, but trails former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by double figures in the most recent New Hampshire surveys.

On Tuesday, Giuliani intends to outline his health care plan. Giuliani's goal is to give individuals more control over health care decisions and to encourage state officials to come up with innovative solutions.

Key to his plan is a $15,000 tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance, instead of getting insurance through employers. Any leftover funds could be rolled over year-to-year for medical expenses, under Giuliani's plan.

"That cash allows you to go out and buy cheaper and cheaper policies; you can have higher and higher deductibles," Giuliani said earlier this month in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

He compared private health plans to plasma TVs, saying the plans would come down in cost as demand grows.

So many things in this article (not to mention the past) make me proud I never even entertained voting for this clown.

A little off topic but...

For anyone who likes to read multiple blogs, news agencies, columns, and regularly updated sites like I do, might I recommend the Firefox Add-On called Beatnik (for those using the Firefox browser only). It organizes all your RSS/Atom feeds on one handy little side bar, like so:



There are other news reader, I just like this one cause it's simple and uncluttered.

If you don't know if the page you are on has a feed, look in the address bar for this symbol:



Click on it and you will get something similar to this:


When you subscribe, then it will save just like a bookmark. I like to organize all of mine together in one bookmark folder personally.

Then when you access Beatnik, or any other reader, it will alert you to new posts usually signified in bold.

With Beatnik, you can even add a icon to your Firefox icon bar up top for easy access (see below) or call it up through the Tools menu in your Firefox browser.


Anyway, just thought someone might find this useful. I read a couple of different pages everyday or so (friend's blogs, BBC, my email even) and find it pretty awesome.

Click here to get Beatnik

Third of Iraqis 'need urgent aid'

Nearly a third of the population of Iraq is in need of immediate emergency aid, according to a new report from Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs.

The report said the Iraqi government was failing to provide basic essentials such as water, sanitation, food, and shelter to up to eight million people.

It warned the continuing violence was masking a humanitarian crisis that had grown worse since the invasion in 2003.

It also found that four million Iraqis had been uprooted by the violence.

More than two million people have been displaced inside the country, while a further two million have fled to neighbouring countries, according to the report.

On Thursday, an international conference in Jordan pledged to help the refugees with their difficulties.

'Dire poverty'

The BBC's Nicholas Witchell in Baghdad says the report by the UK-based charity and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI) makes alarming reading.

OXFAM/NCCI REPORT IN FULL Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The survey recognises that armed conflict is the greatest problem facing Iraqis, but finds a population "increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition".

It suggests that 70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% percent prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems.

"Basic services, ruined by years of war and sanctions, cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people," the director of Oxfam International, Jeremy Hobbs, said.

"Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad. Many of those are living in dire poverty."

Mr Hobbs said that despite the violence, the Iraqi government and the international community could do more to meet people's needs.

"The Iraqi government must commit to helping Iraq's poorest citizens, including the internally displaced, by extending food parcel distribution and cash payments to the vulnerable," he said.

"Western donors must work through Iraqi and international aid organisations and develop more flexible systems to ensure these organisations operate effectively and efficiently."

Oxfam has not operated in Iraq since 2003 for security reasons.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6921617.stm

US 'plans huge Saudi arms deal'

The United States is reported to be preparing a major arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade.

It is said to be part of a strategy for countering Iran's growing strength.

Defence officials quoted by US media and the AFP news agency said it would include missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships.

To counter objections from Israel, they said, the Jewish state would be offered significantly increased military aid.

But the New York Times says Bush administration officials are concerned that the size of the package and broader concerns about Saudi Arabia's influence in Iraq could prompt critics in Congress to oppose the package.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates is said to be planning to discuss the proposals in a visit to Saudi Arabia next week with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The officials said discussions with Congress on the arms package had just begun, and that no announcements were expected during the visit.

Other US allies in the region - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - could receive equipment and weaponry as part of the deal, the officials said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6920458.stm

I don't really understand why we would really consider such a thing. I mean isn't there a super-conservative Wahabbist government destined to be in Saudi Arabia in a few years? I mean there are some really weird things that go on in that country, women's rights are lagging woefully behind there, there is a ridiculous disparity between the mega-wealthy and shamefully poor, and they have freaking morality police! I realize they are one of our "allies", but they suck as a nation (yeah there I said it), and I don't see how shipping more weapons into the Middle East is going bring about peace. Not to mention it sounds like with this we will send Israel even more weapons than we already do! Rather than de-escalating conflict in the region, it seems we are begging for more.

Feed the military-industrial beast, feed it and watch the sacrifice of the innocent to blood soaked gods of death and sorrow! Drenched in oil and misery on a bed of bones Moloch be praised!

Fingers Crossed

The two Arab countries with ties to Israel have paid an historic visit to the Jewish state to "extend the hand of peace" on behalf of their fellow Arabs.

The Egyptian and Jordanian foreign ministers' visit was to present a peace plan backed by the Arab League, which has no diplomatic ties with Israel.

The proposal envisages the recognition of Israel if it leaves occupied Palestinian land.

Israel's prime minister has said the Arab plan contains positive elements.

"We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you, and we hope that we will be able to create the momentum needed to resume fruitful and productive negotiations," said Jordan's Abdulelah Khatib.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have not seen progress for seven years, a period in which more than 5,000 people have died in violence, the large majority of them Palestinians.

Mr Khatib said Israel needed to agree on a precise timetable "not to waste this historic opportunity".

The visit comes a day after the maiden mission of new envoy Tony Blair, the former UK prime minister, and is part of a flurry of diplomatic efforts.

Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel and have sent many delegations there.

The initiative offers Israel normal ties with all Arab states in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from territory it occupied in 1967, the creation of a Palestinian state and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there was "a chance in the near future for the process to ripen into talks that would, in effect, deal with the stages of establishing a Palestinian state".

Full story available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6915976.stm

With all of the awful news that comes out of the region it's nice to see some small bit of positive movement toward peace. I don't necessarily have a lot of hope that the Arab League can broker a deal with Israel on its own, but that would be an amazing turn of events. Two things that I enjoy about this plan: 1) It would simultaneously normalize relations between Israel and Arab states and end Israel's occupation of the West Bank. 2) It would be a major step toward regional peace that occurred (mostly) without the interference of Western powers.

UK hints at foreign policy shift

(Originally on the BBC website, click here for article)

A British Cabinet minister has hinted at a change in the relationship between the UK and US.

Speaking in the US, International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander emphasised the need for "new alliances, based on common values".

He warned against unilateralism and called for an "internationalist approach" to global problems.

Correspondents say the speech appeared to be a "coded criticism" of the policies of President George W Bush.

Mr Alexander's speech came as the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted in favour of pulling most combat troops out of Iraq by April next year.

The vote came despite President Bush's threat to veto any timetable for withdrawal.

'Shared solutions'

In his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington DC, Mr Alexander said isolationism "simply does not work in an interdependent world".

"In the 20th Century a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st Century strength should be measured by what we can build together," he said.

"And so we must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world, but ones which reach out to the world.

"There is no security or prosperity at home unless we deal with the global challenges of security, globalisation, climate change, disease and poverty.

"We must recognise these challenges and champion an internationalist approach - seeking shared solutions to the problems we face.

"Multilateralist, not unilateralist means a rules-based international system. Just as we need the rule of law at home to have civilisation so we need rules abroad to ensure global civilisation."

Poverty call

Mr Alexander, who is seen as one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's closest allies, also said "empowering women must be a priority for us all".

He said: "The economic, social and political position of women in many countries is actively preventing us from reducing child and maternal mortality, and stopping the spread of HIV/Aids."

Mr Alexander said winning support for this approach "is not easy" and work must be done to make them "the accepted norm".

He said: "This means persuading political leaders, indeed community leaders, faith leaders and civic leaders to actively support these principles - whether they are in Europe or the US, China, India or South Africa."

Mr Alexander also called for "core values" of "opportunity, responsibility and justice" to tackle global poverty.

BBC correspondent James Westhead said the speech appeared to suggest that Britain was distancing itself from US President George W Bush.

Our correspondent said: "Some observers have interpreted this as a coded criticism of a president seen by some as high-handed and unilateralist."

But Mr Alexander stressed to the BBC that Gordon Brown had already spoken to the president and was committed to a strong and effective dialogue.

Call for EU-wide fertility rules

Laws on fertility treatment should be standardised across the European Union to deter 'fertility tourism', a leading expert has said.

Professor Paul Devroey said current disparities in rules meant infertile couples often had to travel to get the fertility treatment they wanted.

But he warned this was not always based on good science.

Professor Devroey was speaking a European Society for Human Reproduction and Embyrology meeting in Lyon, France.

He said some countries, including the UK, adopt a liberal, science-based approach to fertility treatments.

However, others, he warned, either dismiss or misuse scientific information.

Professor Devroey, chairman of ESHRE, warned such an approach could increase the risk to the mother and the child.

For example, embryo freezing is not permitted in Italy and so it is mandatory to put three fertilised eggs back into a woman. This increases the risk of multiple pregnancy.

And in Germany genetic screening of embryos is not allowed - because it is viewed as too close to eugenics.

Professor Devroey said the fact that people had to travel to seek treatment was unfair to poorer couples - and often led to poorer treatment.

He is calling for a pan-European think tank to develop a more integrated approach.

(Originally from the BBC, Click here for original)

I think this is an interesting starting point for thinking about the scientific community vs the cultural landscape and how the two will both interconnect and be at odds with the emergence of multi-nation trading blocks. Issues like this one will become more and more important (not that this one isn't)and common in the coming years.

People You Should Know: Mahmoud Abbas

Mahmoud Abbas

- elected president of Palestinian National Authority in January 2005.
- served as the first Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority from March to October 2003 when he resigned citing lack of support from Israel and the United States as well as "internal incitement" against his government.
- considered leading politician in Fatah.
- is regarded as an intellectual pragmatist by some.
- wrote in his book The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism: "It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure [of Holocaust deaths] so that their gains will be greater. This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions—fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand." Later saying, "I wrote in detail about the Holocaust and said I did not want to discuss numbers. I quoted an argument between historians in which various numbers of casualties were mentioned. One wrote there were 12 million victims and another wrote there were 800,000. I have no desire to argue with the figures. The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it."
- has often been at odds with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine.
- On 6/14/2007, Abbas dissolved the Hamas government and declared a state of emergency in response to the increased violence in the Gaza strip. Afterwards, Hamas fighters have claimed to be in control of Abbas' presidential compound. On 6/18, hours after the EU promised to resume direct aid to the Palestinians, Abbas dissolved the National Security Council, a sticking point in the defunct unity government with Hamas. That same day, the United States decided to end its 15-month embargo on the Palestinian Authority and resume aid, attempting to strengthen Abbas's West Bank government. One day later, the Fatah Central Committee cut off all ties and dialogue with Hamas, pending the return of Gaza.

US troops on Iraq murder charges

The US military in Iraq has charged two of its soldiers with the murder of three Iraqis between April and June in the Iskandariya area, south of Baghdad.

Both of the men are accused of premeditated murder and placing weapons beside the bodies of the dead, who were killed in three separate incidents.

Staff Sergeant Michael A Hensley is accused of three murders and Specialist Jorge G Sandoval of one.

Charges were brought after fellow soldiers alerted the authorities.

Both suspects, who are from the Alaskan-based 25th Infantry Division, are now being held in US custody in Kuwait. Spc Sandoval was detained while at home in Texas.

The military statement announcing the charges says they are "merely an accusation of wrongdoing".

"The soldiers are presumed innocent unless and until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of any alleged offense," it adds.

Pentagon investigators are already conducting a number of investigations into incidents of alleged unlawful killings by US forces in Iraq.

In the biggest case, six members of one marine battalion are accused of a role in the killing of 24 civilians in the town of Haditha, north-west of Baghdad, in late 2005.

(BBC article, click here for original)


Does everyone's military answer solely to their own country when they commit war crimes? or is this a violation of human rights? or is this just plain old first degree murder? Regardless, is this the uniform way of dealing with these matters, especially in occupied territories. It would seem in some ways biased towards the troops would it not? Shouldn't it be a joint hearing and trial of both occupied civilian and occupier's military courts? I am unclear on how this works and what the line of thinking behind it is. I would feel really robbed if I were an Iraqi and my people had no say in this matter.

Big oil companies spared tax hikes

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

(Original AP story here)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies.

Democrats came three votes short of overcoming a threatened GOP filibuster that was keeping the measure from being attached to a broader energy bill. Republican senators argued that the nearly $29 billion in additional taxes on major oil companies would have led to reduced production and higher gasoline prices.

Because of Republican opposition, Democrats needed 60 votes to allow the package to come up for a vote, but fell short, 57-36. With a number of senators not voting, Democrats could resurrect the measure later, though there was no immediate indication of that.

The tax proposal had some bipartisan support, but also attracted sharp criticism from many Republican senators who lined up against it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he intends to proceed with consideration of the energy legislation with or without the tax measures. "There are still good things in the bill," he told reporters before the floor vote.

The Senate later voted 61-32 to proceed further with the energy legislation.

Senators hoped later in the day to take up a proposal to increase automobile fuel economy, which has been the focus of intense closed-door discussions in an effort to fashion a compromise that would garner enough votes to overcome strong opposition from the auto industry.

The massive tax measure marked a sharp turn from longtime congressional support of the oil industry to promoting alternative energy development and moving toward energy sources that would help deal with the growing concerns over global warming.

But Republicans complained that it was too harsh on the oil industry and could lead to oil companies reducing investments in new oil refineries and production. They also said that it could lead to higher prices for consumers.

"When you put a tax on a business it gets passed on to consumers," argued Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz. "Instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill is going to add to the cost of gasoline."

Kyl had earlier sought to sidetrack the tax measure, but that effort failed.

The bill's supporters dismissed suggestions that the new taxes on an industry that has had record profits in recent years would cause either less oil production or lead to higher prices at the pump.

Oil companies earned $111 billion in profits last year and at that rate stand to earn $1 trillion over the 10 years covered by the tax package, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., rejecting suggestions that "this is an undue burden" on oil companies.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose Finance Committee crafted the tax package, said the incentives for renewable and alternative fuels "will help wean ourselves away from OPEC ... from these very high gas prices."

The tax changes would have channeled $11 billion over 10 years into development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and power from wind turbines. It provides an additional $18 billion in other tax breaks - from tax credits to clean and renewable energy bonds - to support improvements in energy efficiency, clean coal technology, development of gas-electric hybrid cars that could be plugged into the national power grid and other alternative energy programs.

Major oil companies would have paid most of the tab.

For example, the measure would have rescind a tax break given oil companies in 2004 which was primarily aimed at helping domestic manufacturing; increase taxes paid under an oil spill liability law; and eliminate existing tax credits involving foreign oil production.

Another measure also would have imposes a new excise tax on oil produced from the Gulf of Mexico to recoup $10.7 billion in royalties that the government has been unable to retrieve because of flawed oil leasing contracts issued in 1998-99.

This is ridiculous. Big Oil has too much influence in Washington. The arguments made by those in congress that blocked this bill are unfounded and in my opinion manipulated entirely by oil companies. Big Oil = Evil, in no uncertain terms. It will be a glorious day when the world's dependence on petroleum is over.

EU plans direct Palestinian aid

The EU has said it will resume direct aid to the Palestinian Authority to support the new Fatah-led government.

The decision came after Israel and the US both publicly backed the new emergency cabinet, set up after Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip.

Israel says it will release tax revenues frozen since Hamas won elections in January 2006.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has spoken to US President George W Bush, urging him to push for new peace talks.

Mr Bush called the Palestinian Authority president to offer his support for the new government, said Mr Abbas's office.

Mr Abbas reportedly told the US leader that without Hamas in government, the time was now right for a new peace effort.

Israeli leaders offered strong public support for Mr Abbas' new government.

Speaking in New York, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would consider the new Palestinian government as a "genuine partner".

------------------

The EU and US imposed an embargo on the previous government after Hamas won a surprise election victory 18 months ago.

Speaking in Luxembourg, Mr Solana said the EU would be prepared to make some direct payments to the government of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, in the future.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6762777.stm


Maybe now things will begin to move in the right direction. I understand fully the hesitation to provide foreign aid to violent groups, but I think it is important to remember that with such a significant amount of the PA's operating budget coming from foreign aid, the suspension of such aid means that trash goes uncollected, schools close, hospitals run short on supplies, police officers go without pay, and everything deteriorates even further. And when the state doesn't provide those goods and services, who steps in to fill the void--groups like Hamas and Hezbolla. The worse things get the more support extremists receive.

Secret UN report condemns US for Middle East failures

The highest ranking UN official in Israel has warned that American pressure has "pummelled into submission" the UN's role as an impartial Middle East negotiator in a damning confidential report.

The 53-page "End of Mission Report" by Alvaro de Soto, the UN's Middle East envoy, obtained by the Guardian, presents a devastating account of failed diplomacy and condemns the sweeping boycott of the Palestinian government. It is dated May 5 this year, just before Mr de Soto stepped down.

The revelations from inside the UN come after another day of escalating violence in Gaza, when at least 26 Palestinians were killed after Hamas fighters launched a major assault. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the rival Fatah group, warned he was facing an attempted coup.

Mr de Soto condemns Israel for setting unachievable preconditions for talks and the Palestinians for their violence. Western-led peace negotiations have become largely irrelevant, he says.

Source: The Guardian. Full story available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2101677,00.html

There was a time when we at least put serious efforts into peace in the Middle East. While the US has always looked to its own interests first--as do most nations--we have moved from subtle acts of imperialism meant to shore up our position of hegemony and to advance our "policy goals" to more overt acts of Empire building, particularly in this region. Sad. We had so much opportunity to do good at the end of the Cold War, yet we have squandered our potential on self-serving policies, imperialism, and profiteering.

Sex bomb, sex bomb....

(CBS 5) BERKELEY A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsequently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistibly attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents.

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.

"The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly dismissed.

However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.

"The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the notion of a "gay bomb" both offensive and almost laughable at the same time.

"Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed."

This perhaps needs no comment. A simple "What the.....?" will suffice.

Studies say death penalty deters crime

There are a few interesting studies that were recently talked about in an AP story on capital punishment as a deterrent (click here to read the full article). Here are excerpts from the article:

- Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

- The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

- Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

There wasn't a link to the actual studies themselves, so I do not know exactly how these studies were carried out. For instance, did it take into account the economic background's (or difference in economic background) affect on the convicted? Or the change in economic conditions in a given area? The ratio of those who were convicted versus those found innocent? To tell you the truth, I am wondering how they conducted their information gathering techniques. I mean, are they taking the word of convicted murderers or potential murderers?

Regardless, I think these studies are an interesting starting point for a discussion on capital punishment.

Chris Dodd writes the Pope

Dear (my name),

America doesn't start wars - we end them.

We don't turn away from the world - we lead it.

And we don't commit torture - we condemn it.

All of this was true until the current administration, and we shouldn't wait until we elect a new President before we stand up to the mistakes made by this one.

There is no doubt that we live in dangerous times and that America has real enemies, but the actions of this Administration have made us more vulnerable as nation, not less.

That is why I intend to do everything within my power to bring a bill I introduced earlier this year, the "Restoring the Constitution Act," to a vote in the United States Senate.

But today I need your help. Watch my video discussing the bill and upload your own explaining why you believe America is most secure when we draw strength from our highest ideals, not our worst fears.

http://www.restore-habeas.org

During last weekend's debate, I was asked what a top priority for the Dodd Administration would be during my first 100 days in office. My answer was clear, "I would try to restore the Constitutional rights in this country" and I wouldn't need one hundred days to do it.

Indeed, we must restore habeas corpus, but to regain our moral standing in the world requires more than that alone.

That is why the "Restoring the Constitution Act" would also prevent the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion, limit the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and make that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight, and narrow the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in a zone of active combat against the United States, and individuals who participated in attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Watch the video explaining the "Restoring the Constitution Act," upload your own, and sign on as a citizen co-sponsor.

http://www.restore-habeas.org

In removing habeas corpus protections, the Military Commissions Act affirmed vengeance as a tool in fighting terrorism – discarding sixty years of precedent and respect for the rule of law.

The subjugation of habeas and the use of torture make us weaker as a nation, not stronger. It's time we stand up and say once and for all that the choice between vengeance and security is a false choice – that American leadership ought to draw strength from not our worst fears but our highest ideals.

Please take a moment to learn about the "Restoring the Constitution Act" and get involved in its passage.

http://www.restore-habeas.org

Justice Jackson said of the Nuremberg Trials, "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

If we fail to rise to this moment, I fear we will be drinking from that chalice for many years to come. In the end, by restoring our fundamental principles we serve not only the interest of justice, but also the long term interests of the United States.

Chris Dodd

I like what Dodd has to say here. It's a good thing he is trying to do. Oh course that has nothing to do with my questions, but I thought I would share it anyway.

Obama answers one of the four questions in an Email reply finally

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I traveled to the Middle East in January 2006, where I met with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, as well as ordinary citizens in both communities. This visit increased my understanding of the challenges that confront the people who live in the region and our diplomatic efforts there, but also my resolve to make a difference.

The best solution to this difficult conflict is two states living side-by-side in peace and security. I believe the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians support this outcome. What is needed is a far more vigorous U.S. diplomatic effort to help them achieve it. But the current Administration has sat on the sidelines for far too long. As President, I would make a personal commitment to this effort.

Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East, and we are obligated to help ensure its security. A negotiated peace with the Palestinians would make Israel more secure and allow the Palestinians to achieve their goal of an independent state. We should be doing more to strengthen Palestinian leaders who support a two-state solution, isolate those who seek Israel's destruction, and help the two sides reach negotiated solutions to all outstanding issues.

An agreement that fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples is the only path to peace, and I will continue to work toward this end. Thank you again for contacting me on this issue.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama


Does that really say anything? I mean, couldn't that have been written by anyone running for president? Well, at least he did answer one of the four questions in some way, that's something at least.

Obama writes the Pope a second time

Dear (my name),

When we launched this campaign, we decided not to take the easy money offered by Washington lobbyists and special interest political action committees.

Instead, we put our faith in you, and we couldn't have made a better choice.

I'll be meeting four of you for dinner sometime soon, but what's happening across this country is bigger than me, or my candidacy.

Together we're re-shaping the political process based on the idea that a movement of people who care about the common future of all Americans can be more powerful than any special interest.

Below is the dinner invitation David sent out yesterday. I hope you'll take a minute to make a donation, and perhaps we'll be seeing each other soon.

http://my.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive

Thank you,

Barack

Wow, actually from "Barack" this time. You'd think if he had time to write me this, he could have answered my questions...hmmmm...

Obama's response to the Pope's questions

Alright, well Obama's campaign did not write back with any answers to my questions, but they did invite me to donate some money (big surprise) and perhaps have dinner with Barack. Honestly, answers to my questions would have been much better in my book. Here's the email for you to read anyway:

Dear (my name),

Most political fundraisers are hosted by lobbyists and filled with representatives of special interests.

But our campaign is different.

Our funding comes from a movement of Americans giving whatever they can afford, even $5, and Barack wants to sit down with supporters like you.

If you've ever thought about making a donation to join our campaign, now is the time. In the next week, four supporters will be selected for a new kind of fundraising dinner. We're reserving two of those seats for new donors like you.

If you make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Wednesday, June 13, you could join Barack and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five.

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive

Our movement is changing the way campaigns are funded. We’re not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees.

More than 100,000 individual donors have demonstrated that this choice is about more than an election. It’s about each of us having a personal stake in the future of American politics.

The dinner for five is an opportunity for you to sit down with Barack and your fellow supporters and talk about what matters to you.

Get the kind of treatment other politicians reserve for special interests. Make a donation in the next week, and you could share your story and your ideas with Barack in person:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive

With every single donation, we’re building a movement to change American politics. And this is just the beginning.

Thanks for your support,
David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America